 |
| A chart from Veriblock’s recent Medium blog post describing how they have switched to Segwit bech32 transactions. |
The Reduction in BTC Block Size Is Controversial But Conversations Continue
When several people told Luke this week that there were no problems with the Segwit transaction and blocked the abuse of space, the developer responded: "Rejecting the problem won't fix it - Reducing the block size is possible." Coldcard founder and founder Rodolfo Novak agreed with Luke Jr.'s assessment and tweeted that "smaller blocks can be broadcast by radio around the world at very cheap prices - I support this." Hours later, Luke again insisted that the block size needed to be reduced for technical reasons and "Segwit solved his theory." by creating broken incentives. "Luke says there are various methods that can be used to implement block size reduction:" Miners can only do the right thing and reverse the settings, users can pay higher fees to miners that they can only collect if they do the right thing. (bad precedent?), and users can use UASF to enforce new limits. "Then someone asked the programmer if a hard fork was needed to reduce the block size and Luke just said" no. "
Luke's statement was not welcomed by everyone and the topic was discussed on social media, it even appeared on the funny Reddit / r / buttcoin forum. " There is no such thing as bitcoin spam, I hate Veriblock. Either you pay for space or you don't get onchain at all, "an individual chimed in on Twitter. Others ask Luke to explain more accurately why the Veriblock transaction did not achieve its intended purpose." What bitcoin features are designed to prevent this? Who is the user Bitcoin? How do you measure what they agree on? "They asked but didn't receive a reply from the developer. Another person wrote: "There is no problem here - Veriblock will issue its own price." The following day, the developer continued to promote the idea of reducing the block size. "At present, Veriblock pays half of the fees that have to be paid by equivalent legitimate users to defeat them," Luke exclaimed. Next, the programmer adds:
Reducing the block size allows us to fix it by making the same fee rates for both.
BTC Traffic Increases and Costs Continue to Increase After Prices Jump Over the $ 10K Zone
At the moment, we don't know whether Luke's idea will convince other BTC developers because the concept has never gained traction before. Nonetheless, the conversation about reducing block size continues to emerge every few months, in addition to BTC supporters discussing the pros and cons of lifting the supply limit of 21 million coins in the future. In addition, there are people who believe that if certain groups get prices from block space, individuals can easily migrate to the Lightning Network and maybe even to the Liquid Blockstream chain.
However, with the BTC chain limited to 1MB, there are people who believe that many people have been given a price for using bitcoin. This week the cost of the BTC network is between $ 0.50-1.00 per transaction, which excludes billions of people from third world countries. When costs are growing higher than now, some bitcoin decimals have really become neutral and even more users are given prices out of 'sacred' block space. Those who believe that maintaining a 1MB block size for the BTC chain is still a striking problem and that Segwit doesn't help much thinking that reducing the block size even further is a ridiculous idea. In fact, network costs have jumped significantly and fighting for block space has become very clear again during the spring and summer of 2019. To this day, traders continue to stop supporting cryptocurrency because of network congestion and high transaction costs.
What do you think about BTC supporters who don't like Veriblock transactions? What do you think of Luke Jr. asking the community to consider reducing the block size? Let us know what you think of this subject in the comments section below.
Source: https://news.bitcoin.com/
